Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f61.google.com ([209.85.215.61]:36582)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCL3SuIvlExC0pfSABRoEkWmDdQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1SxdHx-00007T-BQ; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 05:17:18 -0700
Received: by laai10 with SMTP id i10sf611933laa.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 05:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-authenticated:x-provags-id:message-id
         :date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to
         :x-y-gmx-trusted:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results
         :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id
         :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe
         :list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=U2zm0vsZkHwo04+9HLB+hMySK+PQIIV3uIjeH0ePxFc=;
        b=6NVtyKLcJTATD+rRSo2sVtVlLlFSxgQIHuuxdUL3fz1TAwQyKd0d0dd8LXWXyNM1PZ
         14oYR/mYh7L/on3QLQ36z2L5RrFCnnJxQNTQDer929w/VduqcVqUiy+LK3dOcbMt93hi
         vOeY0uf6tqM4NZwzs/0rCu0I8XJEHn/mY1+JA=
Received: by 10.216.241.137 with SMTP id g9mr91511wer.2.1344082612881;
        Sat, 04 Aug 2012 05:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.216.211.133 with SMTP id w5ls4749804weo.8.gmail; Sat, 04 Aug
 2012 05:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.75.8 with SMTP id y8mr237091wiv.4.1344082611947;
        Sat, 04 Aug 2012 05:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.75.8 with SMTP id y8mr237090wiv.4.1344082611924;
        Sat, 04 Aug 2012 05:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net. [213.165.64.22])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id i17si555572wiw.0.2012.08.04.05.16.51;
        Sat, 04 Aug 2012 05:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.22 as permitted sender) client-ip=213.165.64.22;
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Aug 2012 12:16:51 -0000
Received: from p57A089FE.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.1.33]) [87.160.137.254]
  by mail.gmx.net (mp034) with SMTP; 04 Aug 2012 14:16:51 +0200
X-Authenticated: #54293076
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+0OlEYbtS0RnfmbfiTu2XOv5Xf+k4fDq/7qFJaS0
	MUUdj+32y+sGgp
Message-ID: <501D12B3.7020205@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 14:16:51 +0200
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Suggestion for a new animacy marker in Lojban.
References: <58935d67-62c7-4949-b2ac-5c20da578d4e@googlegroups.com> <501D0CE5.9070306@gmx.de> <3368ff95-f413-4008-bfd8-022636e10662@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <3368ff95-f413-4008-bfd8-022636e10662@googlegroups.com>
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Original-Sender: seladwa@gmx.de
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.22 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=seladwa@gmx.de
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------060400060801020709050908"
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060400060801020709050908
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Am 04.08.2012 14:07, schrieb Gleki Arxokuna:
>
>
> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 3:52:05 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:
>
>     Am 04.08.2012 08:35, schrieb Gleki Arxokuna:
>>     *Suggestion for a new animacy marker in Lojban.*
>>
>>     Many if not most languages divide all predicates into levels of
>>     animacy.
>>     English, for instance, has at least two levels. These are the
>>     pronouns for them
>>     1. Animate. He/she
>>     2. Inanimate. It
>>
>>     This allows quickly determine agents of most actions.
>>     Example:
>>     The woman was looking at the mirror. It was ugly.
>>     Let's try it in Lojban.
>>     {lo ninmu pu ca'o catlu lo minra .i ta pu tolmelbi}
>
>     "ta" does not work for back-referencing.
>
> ta - pro-sumti: that there; nearby demonstrative it; indicated 
> thing/place near listener.
> So I showed an example where exactly that meaning was intended.

You showed an example where [ta] does not at all apply. ta requires you 
to be able to point at the thing. But the sentence is in the past.

>     The above sentence would most simply be expressed as either (1) or
>     (2):
>
>     (1) lo ninmu pu ca'o catlu lo minra .i my tolmelbi
>         "The woman was looking at the mirror. It was ugly."
>
>     (2) lo ninmu pu ca'o catlu lo minra .i ny tolmelbi
>         "The woman was looking at the mirror. She was ugly."
>
>     There is absolutely no need to use (in-)animacity or any other
>     arbitrary hierarchy. If you have to, you can always use existing
>     words to specify such things,
>
> By the way how would you express "x1 is animate of level x2"?

zukte.
I have no idea what "level 2" is supposed to mean, but it sounds 
derogatory. I do not want to sort different species into different 
levels. I consider all living things equal.

>     but you don't have to invent new cmavo.
>
>>     *Gender-specific pronouns.*
>>     You might argue why not add more specific markers reflecting for
>>     instance the gender of the object described.
>>     Let's repeat once again.
>>
>>     English has at least two levels. These are the pronouns for them
>>     1. Animate. He/she
>>     2. Inanimate. It
>>
>>     In other words, English has two pronouns expressing sex but only
>>     one pronoun expressing inanimate objects.
>>     There might be languages that split inanimate levels into other
>>     specific classes (furniture, houses, weapons).
>>     Therefore, it would be stupid to try to import all those quirks
>>     of natlangs. {ta poi nakni} is fine.
>
>     Yes. If you absolutely have to, you can specify gender/sex through
>     various techniques, but forcing the speaker to always do so
>
> No. I'm not forcing. Everything must be optional.
>
>     would imply that sex/gender is of primary importance, which in
>     turn would potentially support a sexist world-view. If one is not
>     able to talk about something without knowing its gender or sex,
>     then that is a definite short-coming of the language.
>
> Sure.
>
>
>>
>>     *Unsettled issues.*
>>     Some languages have "abstractions" in their lowest level of
>>     animacy hierarchy.
>>     Lojban is pretty strict when dealing with objects and
>>     abstractions. The issue with the scale "su'unai - su'u" that one
>>     might imagine remains unsettled.
>
>     You either have a NU or you don't. What scale are you imagining?
>
> Look at the list of the levels of animacy in Navajo.

The list is: /humans/lightning ? infants/big animals ? med-size animals 
? small animals ? insects ? natural forces ? inanimate objects/plants ? 
abstractions

/You can sort all of them into either NU or not-NU. All the animals 
including humans are objects. Objects are obviously objects too. Natural 
forces can be either, depending on how you express them. lo lindi  vs lo 
nu lindi. And finally, abstractions are clearly NU.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i/

/

-- 
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.


--------------060400060801020709050908
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 04.08.2012 14:07, schrieb Gleki
      Arxokuna:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:3368ff95-f413-4008-bfd8-022636e10662@googlegroups.com"
      type="cite"><br>
      <br>
      On Saturday, August 4, 2012 3:52:05 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:
      <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0;margin-left:
        0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
        <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
          <div><tt>Am 04.08.2012 08:35, schrieb Gleki Arxokuna:<br>
            </tt></div>
          <blockquote type="cite">
            <div><tt><b>Suggestion for a new animacy marker in Lojban.</b></tt></div>
            <div><tt><br>
              </tt></div>
            <div><tt>Many if not most languages divide all predicates
                into levels of animacy.</tt></div>
            <div><tt>English, for instance, has at least two levels.
                These are the pronouns for them</tt></div>
            <div><tt>1. Animate. He/she</tt></div>
            <div><tt>2. Inanimate. It</tt></div>
            <div><tt><br>
              </tt></div>
            <div><tt>This allows quickly determine agents of most
                actions.</tt></div>
            <div><tt>Example:</tt></div>
            <div><tt>The woman was looking at the mirror. It was ugly.</tt></div>
            <div><tt>Let's try it in Lojban.</tt></div>
            <div><tt>{lo ninmu pu ca'o catlu lo minra .i ta pu tolmelbi}</tt></div>
          </blockquote>
          <tt><br>
            "ta" does not work for back-referencing.</tt></div>
      </blockquote>
      <div>ta -&nbsp;pro-sumti: that there; nearby demonstrative it;
        indicated thing/place near listener.</div>
      <div>So I showed an example where exactly that meaning was
        intended.</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    You showed an example where [ta] does not at all apply. ta requires
    you to be able to point at the thing. But the sentence is in the
    past.<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:3368ff95-f413-4008-bfd8-022636e10662@googlegroups.com"
      type="cite">
      <div>&nbsp;</div>
      <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0;margin-left:
        0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
        <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><tt> The above sentence
            would most simply be expressed as either (1) or (2):<br>
            <br>
            (1) lo ninmu pu ca'o catlu lo minra .i my tolmelbi <br>
            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "The woman was looking at the mirror. It was ugly."<br>
            <br>
            (2) lo ninmu pu ca'o catlu lo minra .i ny tolmelbi<br>
            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "The woman was looking at the mirror. She was ugly."<br>
            <br>
            There is absolutely no need to use (in-)animacity or any
            other arbitrary hierarchy. If you have to, you can always
            use existing words to specify such things,</tt></div>
      </blockquote>
      <div>By the way how would you express "x1 is animate of level x2"?</div>
    </blockquote>
    <tt><br>
      zukte.<br>
      I have no idea what "level 2" is supposed to mean, but it sounds
      derogatory. I do not want to sort different species into different
      levels. I consider all living things equal.</tt><br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:3368ff95-f413-4008-bfd8-022636e10662@googlegroups.com"
      type="cite">
      <div>&nbsp;</div>
      <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0;margin-left:
        0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
        <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><tt> but you don't have to
            invent new cmavo.<br>
            <br>
          </tt>
          <blockquote type="cite"><tt><b>Gender-specific pronouns.</b></tt>
            <div><tt>You might argue why not add more specific markers
                reflecting for instance the gender of the object
                described.</tt></div>
            <div><tt>Let's repeat once again.</tt></div>
            <div><tt><br>
              </tt></div>
            <div><tt>English has at least two levels. These are the
                pronouns for them</tt></div>
            <div><tt>1. Animate. He/she</tt></div>
            <div><tt>2. Inanimate. It</tt></div>
            <div><tt><br>
              </tt></div>
            <div><tt>In other words, English has two pronouns expressing
                sex but only one pronoun expressing inanimate objects.</tt></div>
            <div><tt>There might be languages that split inanimate
                levels into other specific classes (furniture, houses,
                weapons).</tt></div>
            <div><tt>Therefore, it would be stupid to try to import all
                those quirks of natlangs. {ta poi nakni} is fine.</tt></div>
          </blockquote>
          <tt><br>
            Yes. If you absolutely have to, you can specify gender/sex
            through various techniques, but forcing the speaker to
            always do so</tt></div>
      </blockquote>
      <div>No. I'm not forcing. Everything must be optional.&nbsp;</div>
      <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0;margin-left:
        0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
        <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><tt> would imply that
            sex/gender is of primary importance, which in turn would
            potentially support a sexist world-view. If one is not able
            to talk about something without knowing its gender or sex,
            then that is a definite short-coming of the language.<br>
          </tt></div>
      </blockquote>
      <div>Sure.&nbsp;</div>
      <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0;margin-left:
        0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
        <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><tt> <br>
          </tt>
          <blockquote type="cite">
            <div><tt><br>
              </tt></div>
            <div><tt><b>Unsettled issues.</b></tt></div>
            <div><tt>Some languages have "abstractions" in their lowest
                level of animacy hierarchy.</tt></div>
            <div><tt>Lojban is pretty strict when dealing with objects
                and abstractions. The issue with the scale "su'unai -
                su'u" that one might imagine remains unsettled.</tt></div>
          </blockquote>
          <tt><br>
            You either have a NU or you don't. What scale are you
            imagining?<br>
          </tt></div>
      </blockquote>
      <div>Look at the list of the levels of animacy in Navajo. <br>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <tt>The list is: </tt><i><tt>humans/lightning &#8594; infants/big animals
        &#8594; med-size animals &#8594; small animals &#8594; insects &#8594; natural forces &#8594;
        inanimate objects/plants &#8594; abstractions</tt><br>
      <br>
    </i><tt>You can sort all of them into either NU or not-NU. All the
      animals including humans are objects. Objects are obviously
      objects too. Natural forces can be either, depending on how you
      express them. lo lindi&nbsp; vs lo nu lindi. And finally, abstractions
      are clearly NU. <br>
      <br>
      mu'o mi'e la selpa'i</tt><i><br>
      <br>
    </i><br>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo</pre>
  </body>
</html>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.<br />



--------------060400060801020709050908--